What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?

quote:

---

Quantumn only works with multiple, countless particles.

​

No, it doesn't.

---

QM is the expected probability factor of a mechanism of actions. The BBT relies on one action.

quote:

---

Quarks don't appear before photons because they're "smaller"

---

That goes against your own disputation: you are also saying that photons [light particle] being smaller 'predate' quarks. My point.

Hello IamJoseph, You have repeatedly told us that the first product of the Big Bang Theory is light. From the above statement you are saying that VISIBLE light was the first product. From what I can unravel from your posts, you are suggesting that there was a mush that contained everything. God said let there be light and separated light from this mush. This command, let there be light is what you are saying is the first moment of the BBT. You are suggesting that visable light was the very first product of the BBT. Is that correct? So there were two 'things' right at the start, this mush and God. Is this right?

quote:

---

If you could look at the BB occuring - you would first see a light.

​

You have repeatedly told us that the first product of the Big Bang Theory is light. From the above statement you are saying that VISIBLE light was the first product.

---

'Visible' light is open to many variant scenarios. Some life forms see light when we do not; this is limited to the structure of the eye mechanism itself. I refer only to light per se. Here, the subject's abilities must not be factored in.

quote:

---

Light occured. The HOW is gven as a command; 'SAID' referring to speech. At this point, at least according to the text's narratives, nothing else existed as identifiable. IOW, there was no fusion or environment; no energy, space or time. No tools or elements.

​

Light could not have occured by other elements or processes - these never existed at this point. Light is a result of seperation, by virtue of laws initiated for the first time in the universe, and their embedding in the mush [void] with specific attributes to attain a pre-directed result.

​

The universe could not start with a pristine one and nothing else around - because an action can only result from an interaction with other items. It takes two to tango applies.

​

From what I can unravel from your posts, you are suggesting that there was a mush that contained everything. God said let there be light and separated light from this mush. This command, let there be light is what you are saying is the first moment of the BBT. You are suggesting that visable light was the very first product of the BBT. Is that correct? So there were two 'things' right at the start, this mush and God. Is this right?

---

Yes. Basically, Genesis is saying, which I fully agree with as a logical process, is that at one time there were no laws or science - evidenced by the stars and planets, as well as gases and complex products also never existed at one time; this is vindicated by the fact the universe itself never existed at one time, thus the laws which allowed it to happen, and its products, also never existed at one time.This demands the question at what point did the laws usher in; this unique question is answered only in Genesis V 2, namely pointing to the event when science itself emerged. Since stars never existed at one time while the universe did, it stands to reason that the laws which allowed stars to happen never existed, then they existed, by virtue of the first star estimated as 400K years after BB point. This vindicates the Genesis provision that at one tme the universe existed, but it did not contain any identifiable products and was a mush/void [everything was one material; nothing was a separate individual product].Thereafter, an array of products are listed as examples, in a cherent, patterned and imacting order: Light [unversal impact]; day/night ratio [of our solar system impacts]; water separation from land [of our earthly impacts]. These appear fundamental factors for the emergence of the universal products, earthly products and of life itself on this planet, via anticipatory requirement and evidenced protocols; life would not happen without any of those factors and without those exacting protocols.Whether one agrees or disagrees has no impact on this being a coherent scientific explanation.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

IamJoseph,It is really hard to pin down what you actually mean by what you say. You made this comment to a human being. Homo sapiens and used the word YOU. If YOU LOOK at the BB occuring - YOU WOULD FIRST SEE a light. You must be able to see how this is a little confusing.Lets try to narrow down what you mean. Please supply your definition of LIGHT. Be as detailed as you can. It would be good if you could supply some references regarding your sources for your definition. That way, if we dont quite understand some of what you say, we can go to the source and check it out ourselves. That will give us a place to start. Ok, I am with you so far. You say that laws (I assume you mean scientific laws like cosmic expansion, Keplers Law, Law of Gravitation, Thermodynnamics, Newtons Laws etc) did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. This is fine. Saying science did not exist is not though. Science is the building of knowledge. Even discussing this as we are is science.with regards to this bit - "thus the laws which allowed it to happen, and its products, also never existed at one time. "The products. I thought you said that the products were all present. They were a "mush". Would you be able to provide the chapter and verse that describes this "mush" please. That would mean that something existed. A mush is something. What made the mush? Also, God is there. I would say that he is something as well.[gs] This demands the question at what point did the laws usher in; this unique question is answered only in Genesis V 2, namely pointing to the event when science itself emerged. Since stars never existed at one time while the universe did, it stands to reason that the laws which allowed stars to happen never existed, then they existed, by virtue of the first star estimated as 400K years after BB point. This vindicates the Genesis provision that at one tme the universe existed, but it did not contain any identifiable products and was a mush/void [everything was one material; nothing was a separate individual product]. \[/qs\]Again, science cannot begin or end. I think you mean that the subjects of scientific laws began to take effect. But I get what you mean. You say that the universe existed but had no stars. How much time was this? How did you work out how much time the universe existed for without having any stars? The day night ratio. How do you believe that this happened. Did God put the planet Earth at the right location in the solar system. Or did he create the sun and put it in the middle? How did he create this day night cycle? From looking at the solar system. It seems that Earth is one of many planets formed after the sun. Its distance from the sun can be explained. As can its rotation. I wont go into the details but these two things simply, logicaly and scientificaly explain the day night cycle. God is not required for this. Are you saying the day/night cycle way created prior to the creation of the Earth?You have said that life would not happen if things did not go exactly according to the Genesis story. I disagree with this. I would say that life as we know it may not have happened. Looking at todays life and assuming that the entire universe was
created for it is a bit too arrogant for my tastes. It is also unscientific. In order to believe that this is true, you have to believe in a God figure you have no evidence of.A book describing some of the thnings around us is not evidence for God.

quote:

---

It is really hard to pin down what you actually mean by what you say.

​

If you could look at the BB occuring - you would first see a light.

​

You made this comment to a human being. Homo sapiens and used the word YOU. If YOU LOOK at the BB occuring - YOU WOULD FIRST SEE a light. You must be able to see how this is a little confusing.

---

I honestly cannot fathom what is confusing here. Obviously, it refers to what will be the first image/entity confronted if the BB point was approached or seen. It does not have to be a human 'seeing' - its only meant to be metaphorical and a means to prove what the first product in the universe was. I believe this is light, which emerged from a whole of matter, and thereafter other products also emerged out of that matter. Here, light is one of the first emerging products separated from the whole. Nothing else makes sense how it must have happened, and yes I got this from giving Genesis serious thought.

quote:

---

Lets try to narrow down what you mean. Please supply your definition of LIGHT. Be as detailed as you can. It would be good if you could supply some references regarding your sources for your definition. That way, if we dont quite understand some of what you say, we can go to the source and check it out ourselves. That will give us a place to start.

---

I don't believe one can define light by its properties, any better than say a human can be determined by listing properties. There are many variant descriptions what light per se is, aligning this with heat and energy. So whatever one defines as light may not align with a process of current knowledge. My own personal view/conjecture is that light is independent of energy and heat, predating these, but becoming active when heat and energy is combined in a certain mode. I also see photons as a later development and perhaps being aligned with luminosity [vision friendly light]. However, these are only personal summations. I see problems associating energy and heat as the producer of light and all things in the universe.

quote:

---

Yes. Basically, Genesis is saying, which I fully agree with as a logical process, is that at one time there were no laws or science - evidenced by the stars and planets, as well as gases and complex products also never existed at one time; this is vindicated by the fact the universe itself never existed at one time, thus the laws which allowed it to happen, and its products, also never existed at one time.

​

Ok, I am with you so far. You say that laws (I assume you mean scientific laws like cosmic expansion, Keplers Law, Law of Gravitation, Thermodynnamics, Newtons Laws etc) did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. This is fine. Saying science did not exist is not though. Science is the building of knowledge. Even discussing this as we are is science.

---

The notion of building and knowledge are also post-uni products; these never existed at one time. Finite means absolutely finite. Now we're getting warmer.

quote:

---

with regards to this bit - "thus the laws which allowed it to happen, and its products, also never existed at one time. "

​

The products. I thought you said that the products were all present. They were a "mush".

---

By products I mean identifiable, separate and independent items which emerged from the lawless matter [the mush]. Thus light is the first separated product and the first law-based one out of the lawless mush. This is what Genesis is saying, and whether one agrees or not this happened, it is a scientific premise and it could have happened that way.

quote:

---

Would you be able to provide the chapter and verse that describes this "mush" please. That would mean that something existed. A mush is something. What made the mush? Also, God is there. I would say that he is something as well.

---

Yes I can, but I do not wish to press the issue with any theological stuff. Everyone is aware Genesis V2 says everything was a void w/o form, and then products emerged via the action of laws and separations.

quote:

---

[gs] This demands the question at what point did the laws usher in; this unique question is answered only in Genesis V 2, namely pointing to the event when science itself emerged. Since stars never existed at one time while the universe did, it stands to reason that the laws which allowed stars to happen never existed, then they existed, by virtue of the first star estimated as 400K years after BB point. This vindicates the Genesis provision that at one tme the universe existed, but it did not contain any identifiable products and was a mush/void [everything was one material; nothing was a separate individual product]. \[/qs\]

​

Again, science cannot begin or end. I think you mean that the subjects of scientific laws began to take effect. But I get what you mean. You say that the universe existed but had no stars. How much time was this?

---

The first star is estimated to have formed 400K years after the BB point. Light pre-dated this event. Obviously, like all other products, certain actions are required to activate them. Stars, flint sticks and an AA battery can activate light, which would not be possible if light was not already existant. I thus do not confuse activating and actual pristine creation of light per se.

quote:

---

How did you work out how much time the universe existed for without having any stars?

---

Star light can only tell us the distance of that star. The background cosmic radiation is said to still linger from the BB point, and this is used to calculate the universe age. Thus light is the factor which emerged first - else why use light?

quote:

---

Thereafter, an array of products are listed as examples, in a cherent, patterned and imacting order: Light [unversal impact]; day/night ratio [of our solar system impacts]; water separation from land [of our earthly impacts]. These appear fundamental factors for the emergence of the universal products, earthly products and of life itself on this planet, via anticipatory requirement and evidenced protocols; life would not happen without any of those factors and without those exacting protocols.

​

The day night ratio. How do you believe that this happened. Did God put the planet Earth at the right location in the solar system. Or did he create the sun and put it in the middle? How did he create this day night cycle? From looking at the solar system. It seems that Earth is one of many planets formed after the sun. Its distance from the sun can be explained. As can its rotation. I wont go into the details but these two things simply, logicaly and scientificaly explain the day night cycle. God is not required for this. Are you saying the day/night cycle way created prior to the creation of the Earth?

---

That is the correct question. I won't use terms such as God, so how about an indefinable and indescribable source, as in precedent and transcendent with ultimate wisdom? Yes, I see no alternative to life on this planet without specific and critical actions which anticipated forthcoming life; no random or auto selection jargon applies. I see the earth rotations and revolutions, its tilted angle and distance from the sun, as focused, critical actions paving the way for life. How else!? This is what I see as the meaning of measured separations of the DAY [LIGHT] and NIGHT [DARKNESS] -as irrefutable conditions for life, and the same applying with the separation of water from land, as we get closer to earth. It appears the earth was once covered with water, then portions of the sea bed rose above the water levels as mountains and plains, catering to the manifold life forms anticipated; thus 'separating the water from the land'. Such actions are not negotiable and directly aligned with earth being life friendly. Atheism will deny it forever, but Darwin/ToE has major probelms in its omissions of these actions.

quote:

---

You have said that life would not happen if things did not go exactly according to the Genesis story. I disagree with this. I would say that life as we know it may not have happened.

---

But life did happen. And exclusively via the conditions you deny, exclusively on earth amongst all we can see in the known universe for 14B years.

quote:

---

Looking at todays life and assuming that the entire universe was
created for it is a bit too arrogant for my tastes. It is also unscientific. In order to believe that this is true, you have to believe in a God figure you have no evidence of.

---

Yes and no. It would be equally less than satisfactory if we had a backyard which was immediately conquerable. It is also possible that the stars and galaxies play a pivotal role in keeping the earth balanced and in place, in the space bed it is emersed in, as well as the critical light and gas mix required. We cannot postulate too much in this regard. Humans may well be the most powerful entity in the universe, possessing the most powerful weapon: speech. The imprints of 14B years say there is no life out there; the correct math says the vastness favors no life outside earth as well.

quote:

---

A book describing some of the thnings around us is not evidence for God.

---

The reverse applies. A universe maker for a universe is a scientific premise; in fact it is questionable if there is any science outside this premise. What you are accusing me of doing is in fact the problem with ToE: it is observing things and not providing anything else aside from the observances and their process of actions - this is certainly not proof of a ficticious deity called NATURE. IMHO, complex actions and products, such as a car or PC align only with a car and PC maker; it is a powerful and cognigent scientifically based premise against ToE.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Hello IamJoseph, OK, so by light you do not mean anything that is described as light as we know it? You are just choosing the word light to describe it? Could you interchange the word light with any word?if it refers to the first image/entity then you dont actually mean light as any standard definition of the word light?Its metaphorical. So when god said "let there be light", he did not actually mean let there be actual light, he was just being metaphorical.You BELIEVE this is light. You dont actually have any evidence of this. This is your belief. That is fair enough, as long as you are aware that it is no longer scientific. Light can and has been defined by its properties. Human can, has, is and will continue to be determined by listing properties. Again, think and belive whatever you want. As long as you are aware that this is no longer scientific. How do you translate formless void to mean a space filled with a 'mush' that contains everything. A space that contains absolutely everything is not a void. It is the exact opposite of a void as it not only does not contain nothing, it actually contains everything. This shows a HUGE lack of knowledge about the theroy of Evolution. Also with athiesm. No evolutionary biologist would deny that the day night cycle has had a major effect on evolving creatures. It is not ommited. It is actually used as the major factor in many evolutionary changes. Bats using sonar to 'see' in the dark is an evolutionary change specific to the day night cycle. I have no idea how an athiet would deny that the Earth is life friendly. If they are alive, they would see that? you have a bit of a habit of putting words in other people mouths. I am not denying any of the factors that you have mentioned being a requirement for life. What I am saying is that life formed because of those factors. Your argument appears to be that the factors were created for life to happen. There is a VERY large difference in these positions. i hope we are not the best the universe could provide. that would be a little sad. I also disagree that speech is the most powerful weapon. i would say critical thought is. the ability to reason and think of something. The maths of us being alone actually does favour life out there. Drake had a good go at this. check it out here : Drake equation - Wikipedia The reverse applies? If that were true, then any religious book is proof of the existence of their chosen God. there are so many problems with this paragraph. A universe maker, essentially a magician, is not a sccientific premise. The next phrase : in fact it is questionable if there is any science outside this premise. I am going to assume that there is a language barrier here as you cant actually mean what that says. So you think the PROBLEM with the ToE is that it is merely observing things and providing observations and process of actions. I cant see how that is a problem because that is exactly what the it it supposed to be doing. That is what scientific study is, observing and providing a reasonable description of the process. That is hat science is supposed to do. I have written you a long post explaining how you are using the word nature incorrectly in another thread. A car and a PC can in no way be used as examples in a debate about ToE. They are man made objects. The ToE only applies to living organisms. (even things like viruses that kind of stretch the definition of alive)

Nope - tens of millions of years at the very least Nope - the cosmic microwave background radiation was emiited ~400k years after the Big Bang.

No, I am most certainly not saying that. Photons are not "smaller" than quarks - such a comparison is essentially meaningless. And quarks and gluons definitely predate photons.

No contest. My 400K figure could be mistaken. It seems too small, and I recall only the term 400 - this could be millions or light years.Recap Re Light. I see the means of testing if light was the first product by asking the correct questions. It is even a relevant issue because it is first declared in what is the world's most believed, impacting and debated document humanity possesses, for the longest period of time. My position is to examine this from a scientific POV, which is only possible if taken up seriously and honestly and with an open mind. Comparisons with other theologies or as just another theology is a grotesque error - no other document discusses such issues or posits any answers here: its NOT another theology but the first writings which can be discussed, debated, affirmed or faulted scientifically. We simply have nothing else to test against science: remember we are quoting the only ancient document which discusses the universe's beginnings [cosmology] and which never said the earth is flat!Of course, I don't mean to disrupt a scientific thread. If it does not belong here, then it should be given an opportunity elsewhere. I understand it may be relocated.The Q: IS LIGHT THE FIRST PRODUCT IN THE UNIVERSE?Genesis says light is the first product which emerged from the mush [formless void; before the advent of other laws impacting or before any other law based products emerged]. Its a reasonable scientfic premise, one worth debating. This premise says light predates everything else, including eneregy and heat [which science sees as the cause of light] - a grueling scientific wrestle here. Of note we measure the universe's age by light residues; it has a transcendent velosity of all moving products; is ageless [oldest?] and massless [before anything else emerged?]. Protons are said to be massless, but I am unsure if invisible light [earliest background cosmic radiation] contains photons.These kind of questions determine the veracity or lacking in this document, or where science has made errors. Its a credibility factor, measurable by the correct and/or incorrect other statements stated in the same document; if for example it prevails over any current premise held by science, then extremely high points must be allocated; if it makes a first claim verified by current science, again extremey high points must be allocated. This is the only meaning of being scientific, honest and open minded.The issue becomes naturally extended, larger and mostly into a cursory, unending circular debate because we also have to ask the following relevant issues which critically impact:Q2: WERE SCIENTIFIC LAWS ALWAYS RELAVENT OR DID THEY HAVE A START-UP POINT AND NEVER EXISTED BEFORE?.Q3: IS THE UNIVERSE [ABSOLUTELY] FINITE OR INFINITE?

quote:

---

No, I am most certainly not saying that. Photons are not "smaller" than quarks - such a comparison is essentially meaningless. And quarks and gluons definitely predate photons.

---

Photons, unlike quarks, are massless. This defies the notion of aging a product; e.g. we cannot measure the age of something which is massless; it is seen as ageless.The other issue is, if quarks predate photons, which I am not contesting either way, then it also says there was no first entity in the universe, a first entity being a singular indivisible and irreducible product. This says that the universe began with a multiple of products simultainiously [a constuct]. This is the reason I question if photons are a later embellishment, which makes light vision friendly and more aligned with luminosity than light per se. There is no question light has properties not just varied from all others, but is unique and transcendent of all other products, e.g. its velosity and massless attributes. This says light is not a combination of other products because no other products display the same attributes.

Hello IamJoseph, As you have been unable to provide a definition of what you consider light to be, this is an impossible question to answer. It is like saying is 'x' the first product in the universe.If you cannot tell me what X is, there is no way to answer the question.here it is : Kent HovindAlso, have you read my post re the definition of the word nature?Edited by Butterflytyrant, : adding link

quote:

---

As you have been unable to provide a definition of what you consider light to be, this is an impossible question to answer. It is like saying is 'x' the first product in the universe.

​

If you cannot tell me what X is, there is no way to answer the question.

---

Anyone can quote a dictionary [light makes things visible; light is energy; etc]. However, if light is the first product, it cannot be defined in terms of subsisting courtesy of other products. You cannot define light based on its being the first product in the universe; not even photons can apply. In fact even the term 'first' is incorrect, because first infers one of many. Note that in Genesis the first day is called DAY ONE; while the next days are called SECOND DAY and THIRD DAY - this is not an error or a superfluos entry. Technically, Genesis is correct in an advanced mode. Perhaps you are not understanding or confronting what a first ever product is?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Hello IamJosep,It appears that your entire argument rests on the definition of light. Yet you cannot suppy the definition.Without a definition, it is impossible to support or refute your argument.All you have at the moment is that light (so far undefined) is the first product in the universe because the Old Testemant says it is.You are making connections with the BBT and saying this is also proof of your claims. However, as you can provide no defintion of light, there is no way you could support or refute its similarity with early BBT products or actions.All you are saying is that you believe that light is the first product of the universe because your the Old Testemant says it is.there are significant problems with this logic. Also, you have left the realm of science long ago.

Light was not the first product of the Universe.Not even you can support that claim. Light was, AT BEST, the 4rd product.And that's WITHOUT any definition of the term.

quote:

---

All you have at the moment is that light (so far undefined) is the first product in the universe because the Old Testemant says it is.

---

I have not done that. Instead, I gave valid scientific reasons why light can be the first product; the only reference with Genesis is it is the first recording of this premise and thus a significant factor of merit. The issue is that no one has countered with an alternative, namely what can be the first product, nor have I seen any understanding what the first product must demonstrate - namely, this must be an indivisible and irreducible entity, also the ambition of science with its GUT quest.I'll say it again. The flat earth premise was not dislodged by Galeleo merely by saying so - it had to be countered with proof of an alternative, which was performed. This has not happened here.The inferred allocation of heat and energy cannot apply as a candidate in this scenario. Heat is the absence or polar opposite of cold, and it cannot subsist without drag and interaction with other products; thus it cannot also be the first product. I have offered the premise a star cannot produce light uness this was already subsisting, and showed also that light can be produced by a number of methods, none of them being its actual creation. Further, that the age of the universe is measured by residual light, not heat or energy.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.